Another mass shooting in the U.S

Da Shins Kelly · 16-12-2012 05:10AM

To be honest, I'm surprised they're even around. They strike me as the kind of group that would commit mass suicide like those other crazy cults.

But yes, it's completely messed up. I respect people's right to free speech, but this is just hateful and deliberately provocative. I would find it difficult to contain myself if I was a family member of any of the deceased.

Table Top Joe · 16-12-2012 05:15AM

My computers a bit slow but from what i can tell theyre claiming "God sent the shooter" to the school but i dont see anything about a picket....they are however picketing the funeral of a 2 year old(yes,a 2 year old)who was bitten by a dog,Gods judegment on the sins of the town of Topeka apparently......

Da Shins Kelly · 16-12-2012 05:17AM

Table Top Joe wrote: »

My computers a bit slow but from what i can tell theyre claiming "God sent the shooter" to the school but i dont see anything about a picket....they are however picketing the funeral of a 2 year old(yes,a 2 year old)who was bitten by a dog,Gods judegment on the sins of the town of Topeka apparently......

Here's an article about it:

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-westboro-baptist-church-planning-to-picket

Table Top Joe · 16-12-2012 05:25AM

Thanks(i think...).......unbelievable,wouldnt put it past them,theyre a ****in vile shower

darced · 16-12-2012 05:31AM

This post has been deleted.

FudderMucker · 16-12-2012 06:17AM

Why?

jay-me · 16-12-2012 06:23AM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ironically that was post 666 of this thread!

Run_to_da_hills · 16-12-2012 10:44AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Now that's just disgusting, I respect all organised religion but I find this particular Christian militant group appalling. I remember they picketed funeral's of soldiers. Set aside the wrongs or rights of the war in Iraq but you do not interfere with a person's final ceremony. If were a family member I'd beat one of these people to death if I got the chance, I'm an emotional person and nobody gets away with fcuking with my family.

If they do turn up I they get a visit from some local motorcycle back patch club that will take the law into their own hands with them.

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 10:46AM

UCDVet wrote: »

In all of the cases I'm familiar with, the shooters spent a considerable amount of time building up a stockpile of weapons.

The 'Batman' shooter warned his friends MONTHS before the incident that he was dangerous. He also spent months building up his stockpile of weapons and ammunition.

In the Columbine High School shooting, they obtained their weapons from a gun show in Dec, the shooting wasn't until April (nearly five months later). They also built roughly 100 homemade bombs.

The Virginia Tech shooter bought one gun in Feb and one in March for his shooting spree in April.

But the point is, an arsenal of weaponry more suited to a war front than a community, can be built up.

In all of these cases, they had PLENTY OF TIME to think of other ways of killing people. If they couldn't get the guns, I don't think any of them would have just given up and decided to get a 9-5, settle down, and raise a family.

So its either a massacre or a 9 to 5 job, a polarized choice for anyone with an unstable mind? They will do it anyway, so lets give them a box of guns, is that it?

In my opinion, these people want to be personally involved in these killings, face to face with their victims. You really believe that if they had no access to guns, they would carry out massacres by making home made bombs?

When was the last massacre here with a bomb in a school? Or is the US also more ideal than here, for students or possible disgruntled people to obtain parts and make bombs as well?

Wibbs · 16-12-2012 11:43AM

UCDVet wrote: »

It would take me less time to buy and assemble a bomb, with no previous knowledge on how to do it, than it would take for me to legally purchase a handgun in the US. And, it would cost considerably less money.

Fair enough on the money front, but it owuld take you less time and with no knowledge to assemble a bomb? Maybe in the US where you have easy enough access to gunpowder for reloading purposes. In Ireland it would be a lot harder and you would definitely need some expertise.

tails_naf wrote: »

Yes you have stated 50 times that these were not fully automatic. You have however neglected to mention that semi-automatic rifles such as used in most (if not all) mass shootings are capable of delivering hundreds of rounds in minutes. The ability to deliver such fire-power is what people are against.

In this case the bastard used two handguns. "Automatics" yes, so ban them? OK then you have the good old six shooter revolver that can fire just as fast and with reloaders are nearly as fast to get rounds in the chamber. OK so ban them? Then you've got legit hunting rifles and there are enough folks living in the middle of nowhere who would have a legit reason to own one, never mind sporting shooters. Shotguns would be about the last to get the chop in gun control measures. You can get them here and we've got very restrictive(and often well daft) gun control. If I was given the choice that I could only have one firearm for hunting for the table, home defence, even offence in close quarters? I'd pick a shotgun in a heartbeat.

donvito99 · 16-12-2012 02:36PM

Lets not forget that it can happen on these islands.

Dunblane

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-12-2012 02:49PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Lets not forget that it can happen on these islands.

Dunblane

Yes and it was absolutely dreadful as I was in work when news came through with several of my work colleagues heading back to Dunblane to check on their children who were in Primary school. At least something was done afterwards.

Snowdrop campaign

Wattle · 16-12-2012 02:51PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

To be honest, I'm surprised they're even around. They strike me as the kind of group that would commit mass suicide like those other crazy cults.

But yes, it's completely messed up. I respect people's right to free speech, but this is just hateful and deliberately provocative. I would find it difficult to contain myself if I was a family member of any of the deceased.

That lot would never commit suicide they're having wayyy too much fun enjoying people's pain here on earth.

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 03:00PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes and it was absolutely dreadful as I was in work when news came through with several of my work colleagues heading back to Dunblane to check on their children who were in Primary school. At least something was done afterwards.

Snowdrop campaign

It's a pity that something led to a massive increase in homicide rates.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-12-2012 03:09PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's a pity that something led to a massive increase in homicide rates.

Really? show me the evidence

My name is URL · 16-12-2012 03:10PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

It's a pity that something led to a massive increase in homicide rates.

I'm sure you don't need it to be pointed out, but correlation ≠ causation.

Do you have any proof that the widening of legislation led to an increase in homicide rates?

UCDVet · 16-12-2012 03:37PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

But the point is, an arsenal of weaponry more suited to a war front than a community, can be built up.

So its either a massacre or a 9 to 5 job, a polarized choice for anyone with an unstable mind? They will do it anyway, so lets give them a box of guns, is that it?

In my opinion, these people want to be personally involved in these killings, face to face with their victims. You really believe that if they had no access to guns, they would carry out massacres by making home made bombs?

When was the last massacre here with a bomb in a school? Or is the US also more ideal than here, for students or possible disgruntled people to obtain parts and make bombs as well?

If they couldn't get guns; they'd get *SOMETHING* else. Bombs are just an easy, obvious example.

I've listed off numerous bombings in the US as well as world-wide; and the infamous Columbine 'shooting' involved more bombs than guns.

There are already laws against killing. Making it so that a killer needs to violate three laws instead of one law is not going to be a deterrent. Beyond that, laws outlawing things are not actually effective at stopping them.

Drugs and prostitution are illegal all over the US - that doesn't stop them from happening all over the country.

Also, schools are 'gun free zones' by law, in the US.

The problem isn't that there aren't gun laws, it's that people who go around trying to kill people don't respect the laws.

robluvshandegg · 16-12-2012 03:44PM

UCDVet wrote: »

So you asked a question to which you already knew the answer?

It's not a 'vague' argument. In the American revolution, citizens fought a war against their government. They used guns to win that war.

Without an armed civilian population, there would be no United States.

The second amendment was written by people who were distrustful of governments and foresaw a potential need for an armed civilian population to overthrow the government again, in exactly the same way they overthrew their government. With guns.

It's not nice, but it did work pretty well for them in 1776.

That's not to say there aren't other reasons why American's own guns; but I think it address the most fundamental 'need' from the perspective of the country as a whole and the reason it's in the second amendment.

A close second would be the right to protect oneself and one's property. That actually does include 'from the government'. In very specific situations it is legal for a citizen to shoot police. But it's most often considered with criminals. Everywhere (Ireland included) you can find stories of criminals breaking into law-abiding citizen's homes in the middle of the night, stealing, raping, and/or murdering. Guns certainly carry an inherent danger - but let's be honest - there is very little (short of a gun) a tiny old lady can do to protect herself from criminals who break into her house at night.

Then you've got people who just like guns, or enjoy shooting, or hunting, or use them in a work-related fashion (like cops).

The argument 'against' guns is that, people would be safer. And there's mountains of data on the subject - but nobody has been able to show a causal link between gun-ownership and violent crime.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

But the need for an armed militia to overthrow the government seems a little dated and honestly sounds kinda ridiculous. I can't see a realistic scenario where the people of the worlds largest and oldest democracy decides it needs a violent coup. From what I can see the gun ownership arises from fear. Americans are afraid of their government apparently, they're afraid of each other and they are afraid when living in their own homes. I think it says a lot about American society when people say that they need a gun on them at all times to feel safe.

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 03:51PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Really? show me the evidence

http://charlie180.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/murder-rate.png

Handgun ban is passed in 1997, by 2002 the homicide rate is up by about 30%.

My name is URL wrote: »

I'm sure you don't need it to be pointed out, but correlation ≠ causation.

Do you have any proof that the widening of legislation led to an increase in homicide rates?

Well the fact that whenever a handgun ban is introduced, no matter where it is introduced, the homicide rate starts to increase. Along with the fact that whenever a state in the US relaxes handgun laws and handgun ownership increases, the homicide rate falls, I think it's pretty fair to say that less guns lead to more murders.

UCDVet · 16-12-2012 04:07PM

robluvshandegg wrote: »

But the need for an armed militia to overthrow the government seems a little dated and honestly sounds kinda ridiculous. I can't see a realistic scenario where the people of the worlds largest and oldest democracy decides it needs a violent coup. From what I can see the gun ownership arises from fear. Americans are afraid of their government apparently, they're afraid of each other and they are afraid when living in their own homes. I think it says a lot about American society when people say that they need a gun on them at all times to feel safe.

Sadly, it's an imperfect world....

I can pull up a near-endless list of violent crimes that have happened in Ireland. While it's great that some people feel safe and have no desire to own a gun or other weapon for self-defense, the truth is, many people in Ireland will find themselves in need of self-defense. People are robbed, raped, and murdered all the time. Now, it's fine to say, 'Well, only 1 in 100,000 are murdered in Ireland' - but if you are that one - you might wish you had a gun on you. Of course, when you add in rapes and beatings, well, the numbers get a lot worse.

You can call it fear, others might call it a precaution.

The odds of me dying in a fatal car accident are very low. I'm not *afraid* of driving; but I do wear a seat belt. I probably won't need a seat belt, and if I need to ride the bus or a vehicle without a seat belt, I'll do it without a second thought. But....I'm happy enough to wear a seat belt.

A lot of people feel the same with guns.

Keep in mind, less than 50% of homes in the US have guns. And much, much, much smaller percentage of people actively carry guns with them. A large number of places (including schools, hospitals, bars, many workplaces, etc...) do not allow guns of any type.

Anyone who doesn't feel they have a need to own a gun is free not to.

EmptyTree · 16-12-2012 04:55PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Handgun ban is passed in 1997, by 2002 the homicide rate is up by about 30%.

I think this is an overly simplistic way of looking at the data and doesn't take into account other factors that may account for the rise in gun crime.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Well the fact that whenever a handgun ban is introduced, no matter where it is introduced, the homicide rate starts to increase.

Really???

Suryavarman wrote: »

Along with the fact that whenever a state in the US relaxes handgun laws and handgun ownership increases, the homicide rate falls, I think it's pretty fair to say that less guns lead to more murders.

I don't think that this is that case at all, in fact, it is quite the opposite: States with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership have the lowest firearm death rates.
http://http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm

Manic Moran · 16-12-2012 05:09PM

EmptyTree wrote: »

I don't think that this is that case at all, in fact, it is quite the opposite: States with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership have the lowest firearm death rates.
http://http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm

The commonly accepted non-biased opinion (and believe me, VPC is anything but non biased) such as those accepted by the US courts systems, is that there is no particular evidence of a causal link either way. More guns may not equal less crime, but it cannot be shown that it makes matters worse either. It was one of the arguments put forward by the State of Illinois in the 7th Circuit, the opinion of the court released last week was pretty specific that the argument needs to be better supported to hold weight.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/NY0WAGD8.pdf

To answer earlier question, there was a bunch of kids killed in the Oklahoma City bombing as there was a daycare in the building, but granted, I don't believe they were the primary target

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 05:12PM

EmptyTree wrote: »

I think this is an overly simplistic way of looking at the data and doesn't take into account other factors that may account for the rise in gun crime.

What are those other factors then?

Really???

Yes.

I don't think that this is that case at all, in fact, it is quite the opposite: States with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership have the lowest firearm death rates.
http://http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm

I said homicide rates not firearm death rates. The firearm death rates statistic is for the most part, pointless.

Killer Wench · 16-12-2012 05:19PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't feel they have a need to own a gun is free not to.

This is so not true.

Minutes after sliding out of my mother's birth canal, and immediately following the doctor's slap to my ass, I was given my first AK-47 and told to pop a cap into the first person who got out of pocket.

That's how we roll in 'Merica, yo.

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 06:09PM

UCDVet wrote: »

If they couldn't get guns; they'd get *SOMETHING* else. Bombs are just an easy, obvious example.

The gun culture is likely an integral part of the amount of these massacres that happen, and in many school massacres its possibly entwined with relentless school bullying, hence the reason the perpetrators want to carry out the killings in person with guns. They likely have primary targets. You think the gun culture has no bearing at all, fair enough.

I've listed off numerous bombings in the US as well as world-wide; and the infamous Columbine 'shooting' involved more bombs than guns.

Id say most, if not all victims at columbine were killed by being shot.

There are already laws against killing. Making it so that a killer needs to violate three laws instead of one law is not going to be a deterrent. Beyond that, laws outlawing things are not actually effective at stopping them.

Perpetrators knowing they are going to kill themselves wont worry about such matters. Guns are not outlawed here, but the average person is not familiar with a gun here to the extent that its like an extension of their arm, and its the last thing on the average anger filled person`s mind here.

I think that would all change if it was an automatic right of every civilian here to own a gun. Half our drivers would be shot in a few weeks with the anger on our roads.

Drugs and prostitution are illegal all over the US - that doesn't stop them from happening all over the country.

Speeding on the motorway is illegal. Does that mean we should all be able to walk into the shop and buy a gun like its a box of cornflakes?

Also, schools are 'gun free zones' by law, in the US.

Its hard to stop someone with a gun, from walking in the door.

The problem isn't that there aren't gun laws, it's that people who go around trying to kill people don't respect the laws.

Yes, so there is no point in tightening gun control, since it wont have any effect?

So then, whats the difference between the US and other countries? Mere coincidence that the country with the highest gun ownership is probably the one with worst massacres?

Over here, someone annoys you badly, you want to give them a box. Over there, they just think, I`m going to get my gun and show them. Disgruntled ex employees and relentless school bullying victims, imo, are possibly big factors where a person bubbling away with anger, eventually decides they had enough, get the guns, and target their primary victims along with everyone around them.

Da Shins Kelly · 16-12-2012 06:18PM

It's interesting to note that there hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since they reformed their gun laws in 1996. The rate of gun-related homicides has dropped too.

EmptyTree · 16-12-2012 06:22PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

What are those other factors then?

Your graph refers to murder rates in the UK, which did peak in 2002 and is now in decline. Dr Harold Shipman is suspected of carrying out 172 murders alone in 2002: lots of things can skew the numbers.

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html#

Suryavarman wrote: »

Yes.

I'd be genuinely interested to know where else this has been the case.

Convert me Suryavarman, I want to believe.

Suryavarman wrote: »

I said homicide rates not firearm death rates. The firearm death rates statistic is for the most part, pointless.

In Japan in 2008 where there are very strict fire arms laws there was 11 gun related homicides.

To be fair, on the other hand, in Iceland, Finland and Switzerland where gun ownership is relatively high, gun related homicides are low.

I think Manic Moran had the last word on this. Agree to disagree.

markesmith · 16-12-2012 06:24PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I think it's pretty fair to say that less guns lead to more murders.

The US needs to look at outlawing these automatic and semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, and all that. Most of these guns have no place outside of a war zone or a zombie apocalypse.

Rascasse · 16-12-2012 06:25PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

http://charlie180.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/murder-rate.png

Handgun ban is passed in 1997, by 2002 the homicide rate is up by about 30%.

That's a poor graph to prove your point. For example, in 2000 58 Chinese immigrants found dead after suffocating in a shipping container. In 2001 and 2002 murder rates are skewed high because of Harold Shipman. It seems the murder rate is the detection of murders (not when they occurred) so there were a lump of his found in 2001 and and an even larger number (170+) found in 2002, hence the big spike. Your graph does not account for these anomalies

The graph also conveniently stops at 2002, whereas the murder rate has drop significantly in the UK since.
http://i.imgur.com/aL5cr.png

Edit: EmptyTree got there before me re Shipman

kincsem · 16-12-2012 07:21PM

I've noticed a fondness for USA guns ownership supporters to talk about "homicide" gun deaths.
There are many other deaths in that 220 million gun society. To date in 2012 the USA police have killed 525.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments